Is notice required prior to an investigation meeting?

Merrylegs1969

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I thought there could be inconsistency as the OP said that someone who seemingly admitted doing it hadn't been dismissed. The OP didn't say that this was the same person that had given permission.

Not the same person, just another colleague whose face probably fits a little better.

Merrylegs1969

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Just seen this.

Reasonable doubt does not form the basis of a disciplinary process.

In order to dismiss fairly the employer must conduct a thorough investigation, come to an honest and reasonable belief based on the facts available, and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable responses.

That is a much lower hurdle to jump that the 'reasonable doubt' test

Thanks for all the info, will have to come back to you on the points you've raised as I'm pretty time constrained at the moment. I meant to say reasonable belief, but forgot the correct term!

Sambucus_Nigra

Merrylegs1969 wrote: »

Not the same person, just another colleague whose face probably fits a little better.

Exactly - which means you could argue inconsistent application of gross misconduct.

Hmm71

Merrylegs1969 wrote: »

At the second meeting, yes. Worse than useless really, allowed them to keep comments 'off the record' etc. another one who's rather intimidated by them I think.

He has denied it however, as 4 people say he did you would think there was enough 'reasonable doubt' which I thought formed the basis of disciplinary decisions. She's a nice girl who works hard, not clued up at all about this kind of thing and I just hate to see her shafted.

Oh dear, poor girl. Sounds like the company were just looking to get rid of some staff without paying redundancy. Well good luck to her and to you but take care ok?

zzzLazyDaisy

Merrylegs1969 wrote: »

the 'Appeal Hearing Officer' is the store manager who has orchestrated the entire thing since day one. Indeed he even led the charge of management into the store that night.

She is entitled to have her appeal heard by someone impartial who will consider the case with a fresh mind. If he was involved in the original suspension and investigation, there is a good argument for saying that he has probably made his mind up.

But she has held her hands up and admitted she was smoking. If this is indeed a GM offence (are staff generally aware this is the case?) then her only hope is to convince the employer that the manager gave permission.

If she is to have any chance of success at appeal, she needs colleagues to stand up for her and say that it was well known that the manager gave permission for this. But if other employees (undeertsandably) are not willing to stick their head above the parapet, it is the manager's word against theirs, and unfortunately without evidence, the employer has to make a decision on who to believe, and it seems they have believed the manager.

zzzLazyDaisy

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Exactly - which means you could argue inconsistent application of gross misconduct.

I agree. IF that person was also caught smoking, and/or admitted to this, then there would have to be some valid reason or mitigating factor why s/he has been treated differently. Of course if s/he denied it and was believed, and there is no evidence against him/her, then that may be why s/he was treated differently.

Merrylegs1969

Hmm71 wrote: »

Oh dear, poor girl. Sounds like the company were just looking to get rid of some staff without paying redundancy. Well good luck to her and to you but take care ok?

You've made me think now, the 4 in question were some of the very few with full time contracts, as opposed to the vast majority who are p/t only.

I'll take care thank you, they've tried more than once to get their claws in me but, they don't get given opportunities on a platter.

Merrylegs1969

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

She is entitled to have her appeal heard by someone impartial who will consider the case with a fresh mind. If he was involved in the original suspension and investigation, there is a good argument for saying that he has probably made his mind up.

But she has held her hands up and admitted she was smoking. If this is indeed a GM offence (are staff generally aware this is the case?) then her only hope is to convince the employer that the manager gave permission.

If she is to have any chance of success at appeal, she needs colleagues to stand up for her and say that it was well known that the manager gave permission for this. But if other employees (undeertsandably) are not willing to stick their head above the parapet, it is the manager's word against theirs, and unfortunately without evidence, the employer has to make a decision on who to believe, and it seems they have believed the manager.

During various 'why can't we go out and have a smoke on our break' discussions with another manager, they were told that it would be a written/final written if they were caught doing it.

One colleague was previously caught in front of the store smoking in the early hours of the morning (during a 'security check' by one of the senior managers, ha!), with the store keys on his person and no action was ever taken against him, which smacks to me of setting a precedent. He is among the 4 involved now.

There doesn't appear to be a consistent approach, it seems to vary store to store whether it's a written/final written, or dismissal........or nothing at all!

Sambucus_Nigra

I'd stick with my gut reaction that this is a management ploy orchestrated from the start to swiftly and deftly get rid of several employees in one fell swoop. Otherwise why would you descend on one workplace at night and have everything so planned?

Bradden

Seems an odd policy.. most shops allow staff to leave during breaks to have a smoke.. as long as it's not on company property.

Some even have designated smoking areas.

I can't help but think that this is more about store security than any desire to get rid of staff.